DOER report finds thermal energy networks feasible in clustered Maine settings but recommends pilots and more data
Loading...
Summary
The Maine Department of Energy Resources told the EUT Committee that thermal energy networks (low-temperature shared water loops) can work in campuses and dense centers but face high upfront costs, permitting and ownership questions; DOER recommended targeted pilots, engagement with implementers, and further study before large-scale deployment.
The Maine Department of Energy Resources told the Legislatures Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology that thermal energy networks (TINs) are technically feasible in parts of Maine but that information gaps remain, especially on cold-climate performance and upfront costs.
"A thermal energy network is an interconnected low temperature water loop serving 2 or more buildings," Ross Anthony, Energy Efficiency Program Manager at DOER, told the committee, explaining that buildings use water-source heat pumps to extract or reject heat from a shared loop and that networks can integrate geothermal boreholes, wastewater heat recovery and other sources. DOER said respondents to its request for information (RFI) reported outcomes in other jurisdictions—examples cited included projects in New York, Massachusetts and Denmark—and estimated operational savings and emissions reductions reported by respondents.
DOER summarized the RFIs recurring findings: respondents identified 10'2% lower energy use and 20'50% emissions reductions in some studies, but also noted large variability in upfront capital costs depending on site specifics; permitting complexity, metering and ownership models; and retrofit engineering challenges. The department said the most suitable Maine locations would likely be campuses, hospital complexes, town centers and dense mixed-use developments where building proximity and steady demand make economics more favorable.
The department recommended a cautious, learning-focused approach: continue to monitor and engage with existing projects in Maine and New England (DOER named a new-construction project at the Reu Institute in Portland and an ongoing retrofit in Framingham, Mass.), gather operational cost and performance data from implementers, develop better site-screening tools, differentiate new construction and retrofit strategies, clarify permitting and cost-sharing pathways, and prepare workforce and training pipelines.
Committee members pressed DOER on next steps and the absence of utility responses to the RFI. DOER said it had widely publicized the RFI, received responses from consultants, engineering firms, labor organizations, technology providers and Efficiency Maine Trust, but did not receive submissions from electric utilities; the department suggested that utilities attention may have been focused on related dockets at the Public Utilities Commission.
DOER emphasized that the statutory report completed the RFI-directed obligation and that the department would remain engaged with local pilots and federal funding opportunities but recommended structured learning and targeted pilots before committing state funds to broad programs. The committee did not take a formal vote on deployment during the session.
What happens next: DOER plans follow-up engagement with implementers identified in the RFI and to bring operational findings back to the committee; no statewide pilot funding was authorized in the report.
